M/S Assam Auto Spares vs. The State Of Assam And 2 Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Assam Auto Spares, received a show cause notice dated 30.09.2023 from the Deputy Commissioner of State Taxes. The petitioner claims to have submitted a reply online on 20.12.2023, evidenced by an acknowledgment number. However, on 29.12.2023, the Deputy Commissioner passed an order in original, confirming the levy of taxes and attaching the petitioner's property, stating that the petitioner had failed to respond to the show cause notice. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging this order, arguing that the authority wrongly recorded that no reply was filed despite its submission. The respondent authorities, in their affidavit, stated that they had received the reply, applied their mind, and found it unsatisfactory, suggesting an alternative remedy of appeal.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 29.12.2023 was passed on a flawed premise. The order explicitly stated that the taxpayer had not replied, leading to a presumption of agreement with the show cause notice. However, the respondent's affidavit admitted receipt of the reply, albeit finding it unsatisfactory. The Court found it contradictory that the order was based on a non-existent reply while the affidavit claimed consideration of an existing one. The Court reasoned that the respondents could not alter their position from the recorded reasons in the impugned order by filing an affidavit. Therefore, the impugned order and the subsequent attachment order were set aside. The matter was remitted to the competent authority to decide afresh based on the petitioner's reply dated 20.12.2023, following the prescribed procedure.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 29.12.2023, which presumes the petitioner agreed with the show cause notice due to non-filing of a reply, is sustainable when the petitioner claims to have filed a reply online on 20.12.2023? (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on the procedural fairness and factual accuracy of the authority's determination). Contentions: Petitioner: Argued that the impugned order was passed based on a false premise that no reply was filed, despite the petitioner having submitted one online with acknowledgment. The authority's subsequent affidavit claiming consideration of the reply contradicts the reasoning in the impugned order. Respondent: Contended that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal and that the impugned order was passed after considering the petitioner's reply, which was found unsatisfactory.